(Original post by Ocassus)
But that is a complete paradox, because there will always be enforced authority or hierarchy, human beings will never EVER always agree with one another, and as such one group must take predominance over the other when that time comes.

However I must point out that whilst Einstein has his political goals set, even he is not quite sure how it would be correctly implemented.

(Original post by Albert Einstein)
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

(Original post by anarchism101)
Unless by 'socialist Ukraine', you mean the Makhnovists (which I doubt you do), I wouldn't consider any of those states socialist.

Well, I guess it is kind of easy to win an argument over whether capitalism or socialism is better if you unilaterally declare that Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, pre-reform China, pre-reform India etc. were not socialist states.

That is like throwing out the prime evidence against a murderer and then declaring that murderer didn't do it.

(Original post by Ocassus)
But humans are not isolated bubbles, you could have one individual in a commune who is capable of influencing others to his point of view through persuasion, argument whatever, and so technically he is able to garner more democratic power for what originally appear to be his own goals.

Well no. He can give others advice about what to do; free and open discussion is an important tenant of an anarchist society. There was a case in Anarchist Spain in which BuenaventuraDurruti, a mechanic and a member of the militia, was due along with some other workers to build a new railway. Essentially, when asked what he wanted to do, where he wanted to do it, where he wanted it to go, etc. he instead asked the workers the same questions in return. He could have influenced their opinion by making suggestions, etc. but he wouldn't be saying "do x, do y, do z" as is the case with capitalist and state employment. That is what anarchism is about, letting everybody have a say in pretty much everything.

(Original post by Ocassus)He can become a 'leader' of a minority relatively easily, because a 'leader' by definition must have 'followers'.

Well no, because nothing is drawing them towards following his ideas besides their own opinions being similar, or him convincing them that his ideas would be beneficial. With capitalism, the option is to follow them or starve/have a sub-standard life, and with the state it's follow them or be punished.

(Original post by Ocassus)Furthermore, there are no systems in place to protect against this in anarchism, what if people actively vote to have a STATE, what then? There is no higher power to stop it, so by definition it must happen.

Just because something is possible doesn't make it a certainty. I'm pretty sure an anarchist society would be a lot better so I don't seem them wanting to...

"The right libertarian economist Murray Rothbard suggested that Laozi was the first libertarian[39], likening Laozi's ideas on government to F.A. Hayek's theory of spontaneous order[citation needed]. James A. Dorn agreed, writing that Laozi, like many 18th century liberals, "argued that minimizing the role of government and letting individuals develop spontaneously would best achieve social and economic harmony."[40] Similarly, the Cato Institute's David Boaz includes passages from the Daodejing in his 1997 book The Libertarian Reader.[41] Philosopher Roderick Long, however, argues that libertarian themes in Taoist thought are actually borrowed from earlier Confucian writers.".

So essentially that's based on somebody proclaiming they were a libertarian. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of a Chinese origin of the word. Which is what I'm getting at. Libertarian or not, the word itself didn't originate there and then. It could be argued that the origins of anarchism, and thus libertarian socialism are prehistoric. Hunter-gatherer tribes had no governments, for instance. If they had no leaders or hierarchies then they would indeed have been anarchists.

(Original post by Ocassus)
In response to your video, representative democracy may not be entirely 'democratic' at its core, but it is pragmatic. I advocate open forum politics, IE, intensely close integration with representatives and override mechanics that allow immediate influence and accountability of the makeup of legislature/executive branches.

Sorry. I forgot to note that it was only the bit about money influencing politics that was relevant.

(Original post by Ocassus)
That particular system is also fundamentally flawed, because human beings will also attach themselves to others and form power blocs under the influence of individuals or minorities. A 'government' can quickly arise out of this.

Take for example a commune, what systems would be in place to stop people 'voting' for an 'enforcer', who protects interests. What stops people from voting for an 'intellectual' who is best placed to rationalise a set of laws for the enforcer to carry out? We all perform different roles, even on such a microcosmic scale, and thus I believe this sort of anarchist structure to be inherent self-defeating. Not to mention downright regressive in terms of human progress.

Well, even if that were true. It was intended as a response to your claim that workers self-management can only lead to Stalin/Mao-esc authoritarian regimes. Anarchism in Spain achieved in 3 years what the Soviet Union couldn't in 69. Whether it could have continued to do so without Franco's meddling is another matter.

(Original post by floridadad55)
Well, I guess it is kind of easy to win an argument over whether capitalism or socialism is better if you unilaterally declare that Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, pre-reform China, pre-reform India etc. were not socialist states.

That is like throwing out the prime evidence against a murderer and then declaring that murderer didn't do it.

I wasn't aware India even ever claimed to be a 'socialist state'

These states also called themselves democratic. Should we conclude from that that democracy is authoritarian? Of course not. So why should it be different with socialism.

(Original post by The Socktor)
Well no. He can give others advice about what to do; free and open discussion is an important tenant of an anarchist society. There was a case in Anarchist Spain in which BuenaventuraDurruti, a mechanic and a member of the militia, was due along with some other workers to build a new railway. Essentially, when asked what he wanted to do, where he wanted to do it, where he wanted it to go, etc. he instead asked the workers the same questions in return. He could have influenced their opinion by making suggestions, etc. but he wouldn't be saying "do x, do y, do z" as is the case with capitalist and state employment. That is what anarchism is about, letting everybody have a say in pretty much everything.

Yes but you are ignoring the point, BECAUSE you allow an open forum for discussion and debate, you will open up ability for specific individuals to gain influence. Charisma for example is a great way to garner support, mob mentality tactics are another. It is surprisingly easy to control people, even without an economic system. If you are able to make somebody think they want something enough, they will give you the means to do it even at their own expense.
'Advice' is subject to internal biases, and as such it is likely that somebodies influence would outweigh anothers.

Well no, because nothing is drawing them towards following his ideas besides their own opinions being similar, or him convincing them that his ideas would be beneficial. With capitalism, the option is to follow them or starve/have a sub-standard life, and with the state it's follow them or be punished.

As alluded to above, you do not need an established economic base to persuade and manipulate, or to even coerce. An economic system is just one form of coercion.

Just because something is possible doesn't make it a certainty. I'm pretty sure an anarchist society would be a lot better so I don't seem them wanting to...

Thats a rather flimsy premise to base an entirely ideology on don't you think? Not to mention an implausible one. 'Everybody will be happy and so nobody will manipulate the system (In this case other people) for their own ends'. I would think that in a society where social issues such as rape and murder are still capable of existing, some sort of 'enforcement' would be an easy sell. Not to mention a formal list of 'rules' for people to obey, IE don't rape my daughter, lets not forget, it is not Capitalist Materialism that is the sole driver of human desire. It is not a far stretch to extrapolate this into the definition of a 'state' eh?

So essentially that's based on somebody proclaiming they were a libertarian. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of a Chinese origin of the word. Which is what I'm getting at. Libertarian or not, the word itself didn't originate there and then. It could be argued that the origins of anarchism, and thus libertarian socialism are prehistoric. Hunter-gatherer tribes had no governments, for instance. If they had no leaders or hierarchies then they would indeed have been anarchists.

Well no, the idea existed though, and the idea was of minimal/no state. Libertarian does not mean 'No state', that is what anarchism means. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that language naturally evolves, and that the concept of Libertarianism in its formal term today can mean ideologies existing on both the left and right of the spectrum.

In regards to hunter-gatherer tribes. Firstly, I have to be frank, do you honestly want to regress back to that system? It debases the nature of society and civilisation itself. Secondly; back then what concept of 'justice' existed involved smashing the opponents head in with a rock. There was still a form of coercion, that coercion was physical violence. There will always be SOME form of coercion in society, and you will never escape from that unless you are entirely isolated from it. Hunter-gatherer tribes also had Chieftains and in-built hierarchies based on natural role. One sex, usually women, would mother and rear the young, the men would hunt. Strongest men had pick of mates and more access to resources, weaker men who challenged could often be killed.

Sorry. I forgot to note that it was only the bit about money influencing politics that was relevant.

For me that includes money.

Well, even if that were true. It was intended as a response to your claim that workers self-management can only lead to Stalin/Mao-esc authoritarian regimes. Anarchism in Spain achieved in 3 years what the Soviet Union couldn't in 69. Whether it could have continued to do so without Franco's meddling is another matter.

I never asserted that the only outcome for anarchism was a Stalin/mao-esque state, even though that is a potential probability. Many socialists also disagree on the length of time the 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' should hold. That is not the issue. The issue is that you cannot remove coercion from society, and so a form of hierarchy must always exist in some form. Anarchism actually removes and simplifies the barriers to power, because it is based on raw populism, its a false utopia. Spain managed to hold an anarchist society for three years yes, but under that time, production, innovation, education and net 'human progress' fell.

I believe such a system to simply be at best self-defeating, and at worst downright dangerous to the progression of humanity.

(Original post by anarchism101)
If you were in this situation you'd already be in a state society.

Yes but don't you get it? Individuals are perfectly capable of coercing on their own, and you are never going to be able to change that. So in reality, your broad application of a 'state' renders your own ideology an impossibility, you cannot eliminate coercion (and therefore hierarchy) entirely from society, unless you discover a miraculous way for everybody to agree with each other. And if you do, well, that isn't a world I would want to live in anyway.